Athelstone vs Redwood Park
Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Redwood Park, SA 5097
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Athelstone wins 3, Redwood Park wins 0. The better choice depends on whether you're optimising for cash flow, growth, affordability, or liquidity, the table below highlights the winner on each metric.
| Metric | Athelstone | Redwood Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | - |
| Median unit price | $630K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.30% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.20% |
| 1-year house growth | +14.1% | +13.3% |
| 3-year house growth | +41.1% | +34.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.5% | 0.8% |
| Population | 9,601 | 5,367 |
Athelstone vs Redwood Park: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +13.3% in Redwood Park, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Redwood Park houses +34.0%, so Athelstone has compounded faster than Redwood Park over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 0.8% in Redwood Park, so landlords in Athelstone face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Athelstone is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,601 against 5,367, larger than Redwood Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Athelstone for recent price momentum, Athelstone for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison